Nuclear Reactor Applications Rising

Stagnant For Decades, Nuclear Energy Industry Rebounding

(AP)  The nation's nuclear energy industry, all but stagnant for three decades, is quietly building toward a resurgence with more than two dozen new reactors on the drawing board in 15 states.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications to build 15 new reactors in eight states. Later this year, plants in seven other states plan to seek permits for a dozen more reactors.

The first could be built and operating by 2016.

While 104 commercial nuclear reactors remain in operation in the U.S., the NRC has not approved a construction license for a new reactor since 1978.

The nuclear revival is far from a done deal, however. Companies still must arrange financing, and will need federal loan guarantees and states' approval to hike rates to pay for construction if those loans are to be affordable.

The current push is being driven by soaring demand for electricity nationwide - about 25 percent more electric-generating capacity will be needed by 2030, according to industry experts. And utility companies say environmental and regulatory hurdles have stalled their efforts to build more coal-fired plants.

Economic incentives included in a 2005 energy bill passed by Congress are another factor, encouraging utilities to build new, advanced nuclear reactors that produce no greenhouse gases but cost billions to build.

"We're talking about a trillion-dollar investment in the nation's power infrastructure," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's policy organization. "That's a very substantial undertaking in providing the electricity that we all depend on.

"We have to have nuclear power as part of that," he said. "We need renewables, but by themselves, that's not going to get us where we need to be."

But critics say solar, wind and other "greener" electricity-producing alternatives can play a bigger role, and that nuclear reactors are expensive and dangerous. Some residents near the proposed sites have protested, saying nuclear plants could become terrorist targets. Opponents also are concerned that while the updated reactors called for in the plans are used in Europe, they are untried in the U.S.

And in arid states such as Texas, where two companies are looking to build new reactors, there are concerns about the vast amounts of water such plants require. Most of the new plants would be built in the South, which has faced severe drought recently.

"Investing in a very expensive nuclear plant with technology that's never been used in this country is a risky and costly option," said Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter. "And there's no power source that uses more water, which is especially a problem in parts of Texas."

The last time the NRC approved a construction license for a nuclear reactor was in 1978 near Raleigh, N.C.; it started operating in 1987. The last reactor to go online in the U.S. was in 1996 - Watts Bar near Spring City, Tenn. - although its construction license was approved in 1973.

Dozens of permits were issued in the 1960s and '70s and nuclear reactors were built in the '70s and '80s, although some projects were scrapped because of high costs and new regulations, said Sam Walker, an NRC historian.

In 1979, an accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Penn., caused radioactive materials to be released. It was the most serious commercial nuclear plant disaster in the nation's history.

Although no one died, the NRC didn't issue licenses for a year and a half and the disaster prompted significant changes to safety, regulations and oversight, Walker said.

Since then, existing nuclear reactors have increased output by 25 percent, Kerekes said. But many are reaching their limits and some must eventually be decommissioned due to age.

The NRC received its first application in about 30 years in November, when Houston-based NRG Texas applied for a license to build two reactors at its South Texas Project near Bay City.

Dallas-based Luminant Power is expected to apply in September to build two reactors at its Comanche Peak plant in Glen Rose, about 50 miles south of Fort Worth. Luminant spokesman Tom Kleckner said the reactors are used in Japan, based on proven technology and have a good operating record.

Utilities looking to build new nuclear plants may have to wait in line for the huge steel containers that house the reactors. Most of the vessels - about the size of a 6-story building - are supplied by a single Japanese company.

They will also face the still-unresolved issue of long-term nuclear waste disposal.

The Bush administration is trying to get approval for a national 77,000-ton nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain outside Las Vegas. Federal law requires the government to take spent reactor fuel piling up at commercial power plants and defense sites.

But Nevada's attorney general has recently challenged that plan.

"We feel it's very important to go ahead with the project because we need to stop greenhouse gas emissions," said David Knox, an NRG Texas spokesman. "We're confident the government will meet its obligation."

[nodemotwit]

They will also face the still-unresolved issue of
long-term nuclear waste disposal.
Posted by nodemotwit at 04:26 PM : Jun 14, 2008

That is a no-brainer, take the spent rods up in the
shuttle and sling them into the Sun. (Don''''t start
harping about shuttle crashes either) If this stuff
is stored on the planet, some terrorist will get his
hands on it and spread around our cities, and that
will negate any ''''possible'''' crash scenarios.
Posted by ToolMangler


Uhhh, Mr./Mrs ToolMangler,
this:
** They will also face the still-unresolved issue of
** long-term nuclear waste disposal.

as a quote from the CBS article above, not me.

As far as the rest:
============
a) The max payload of the shuttle 24 tons...
b) ...meaning roughly 5 shuttle missions just to get
rid of just ONE year of nuke waste from just ONE
1-gigawatt old-tech fission reactor.
So getting rid of the waste from TWO old-tech
fission reactor for ONE year would take 10-
flights/yr.
c) From 1977 - 2000 the space shuttle has only
averaged 4.4-missions/yr.

(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)

d) We have already lost two shuttles (`86, `00),
and while liberals might salivate at the remote
possibility of any conservative parts of Florida
being covered in 25,000 years-to-re-inhabit nuke
waste,
unless the probability of a missions disaster drops
to near zero I suspect most Floridians
(and NASA officials, EPA, & the down-flight range
EU...)
would strongly doubt the wisdom of anyone who would
authorize such missions based on the such a high
catastrophic failure rate.

Not to mention the possibility of it all going into
the ocean, and the ocean currents spreading it
around the globe...

All meaning the space shuttle is highly likely to
not be an option for addressing old-technology fission waste.

However, require all new US nuke plants to use Fast-
Neutron fission (or better) reactor technology and
the whole problem becomes very manageable and much
safer wrt Yucca Mountain, as previously described
below.

A forward thinking federal government could help fund the 1st plant...

www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

[libh8er]

Fast track the applications and start building, immediately! Maybe in 10 years, after the environmentalist loones and liberal democrats have exhausted their appeals, we''d actually be able to bring one on line.

[darnedsocks]

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE POPULATION GROWTH. IF PEOPLE WOULD JUST STOP HAVING MORE THAN ONE KID, WE WOULDN''T NEED TO KEEP $UCKING UP THE WORLD''S NATURAL RESOURCES...DESTROYING THE PLANT. IT''S LIKE WE ARE ALL RETARDED AND CAN''T SEE THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE OURSELVES EXTINCT.

[toolmangler-2009]

They will also face the still-unresolved issue of
long-term nuclear waste disposal.
Posted by nodemotwit at 04:26 PM : Jun 14, 2008



That is a no-brainer, take the spent rods up in the shuttle and sling them into the Sun. (Don''t start harping about shuttle crashes either) If this stuff is stored on the planet, some terrorist will get his hands on it and spread around our cities, and that will negate any ''possible'' crash scenarios.

[downsteamjim]

There is an implication that physical principals are different in the U.S. than in Europe. This is not surprising since most anti nuke people learned physics from Cher and Godzilla.

[sparkler1066]

It is time to build nuclear power plants, drill for oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, and off the Pacific Coast, build solar, and wind power plants. With gas over $4.00/gal and it will most likly be over $5.00 before the end of this year, the United States needs to use any and all means to obtain power any way we can. If we as a nation want to be a world power again, it is high time to stop borrowing money from China to buy oil from Saudia Arabia.

[nodemotwit]

technology that''s never been used in this
country is a risky

If we followed that line of thinking the 1st US nuclear plants would never have been built,
nor would we have ever landed on the moon.



They will also face the still-unresolved issue of
long-term nuclear waste disposal.

Federal law requires the government to take spent
reactor fuel

Precisely why the NRC should _NOT_ issue any permits for old-technology fission reactors. A 1-gigawatt old-technology fission plant creates ~100 tons/year of highly dangerous waste, waste which still (with gross inefficiency) contains 95% of the original energy of the fuel, waste that will take +25,000 years to reach safe levels before it can exit Yucca Mountain (w/its 77K ton capacity).

Yet at that rate, a _SINGLE_ old-technology fission plant will fill up Yucca mountain to it capacity in ~770 years, slightly short (24,230 years...) of the 25,000 year minimum required of the most-recent arrival.
(cont)

[nodemotwit]

(cont)
HOWEVER, if the NRC required Fast-Neutron nuclear fission reactor (or better) technology to be utilized in these new plants, the same 1-gigawatt plant would create only 1 ton of much-less dangerous waste,
ie: Waste containing only 1% of the original energy of the fuel, waste that would take only ~250 years to reach safe levels.
And at that rate, it would take _THREE_HUNDRED_ 1-gigawatt Fast-Neutron fission plants to fill up Yucca mountain to it capacity in ~250 years,
_EXCEPT_ that (very importantly) at year 250 (and every year afterwards) Yucca Flats could release 300 tons safely.

On top of that, Fast-Neutron fission reactors could recycle the highly dangerous old-technology fission waste we currently have stockpiled.

A forward thinking federal government could help fund the 1st plant...

www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

[slim1h2o]

So I guess you are trying to tell me that your president Bushit is a friggin genius? And the rest of the country is stupid? Yeah, Right!

I wouldn''t trust him to bury a dead dog, let alone something as dangerous as radio active material.